Friday, May 15, 2015

Three-way federal race?

This week's EKOS poll, with the preliminary results leaked to the Ottawa Citizen before EKOS was forced to publish their final results a day early yesterday, has a lot of tongues wagging in Ottawa. Why? The poll put the New Democrats right in the middle of a three-way race, with the Liberals bringing up the rear. Are we in the midst of a re-alignment, or is this a blip?

This far out from the election, the projection still turns like a big ship (as it should at this stage). Nevertheless, it has recorded a sharp uptick in NDP fortunes with the addition of this new EKOS poll (as well as an Insights West poll for British Columbia, which had similarly good news for the NDP, and the previous week's EKOS poll).

The Conservatives still lead with just under 32% support, enough to give them between 121 and 159 seats. The Liberals are in second with 30% and between 87 and 125 seats, while the NDP is in third at 24% and between 74 and 101 seats.

Both the Tories and Liberals have dropped since last week's update. The Conservative low range has fallen by eight seats from 129, and its high range has dropped five seats from 164. The majority mark is now 11 seats away at the high end, rather than just six last week.

The Liberals' seat range has moved less, falling from 94-128 last week. But most significantly is that the NDP's likely range now overlaps with the Liberals. Last week, the NDP topped out at 88 seats, six below the Liberals' low range. Now, the NDP tops out at 101 seats, 14 seats above the Liberals' low range. This is a big shift, and it could be the start of something even bigger.

There was word from Twitter that a Forum poll also showing a three-way race is forthcoming, and I have heard of an internal poll showing the same thing (take this with caution, though, since there could be plenty more internal polls showing no such thing that I have not heard about). Coupled with the Insights West poll in British Columbia, a Forum poll in Ontario showing gains for the provincial NDP (due to Patrick Brown winning the PC leadership, Forum implausibly explains), and the party's big win in Alberta last week, things are looking up for the New Democrats.

We'll only know if this is a momentary blip or something enduring in the coming weeks or months. If it is a blip, we'll know sooner rather than later.

But let's take a look at this EKOS poll in detail.

The Conservatives led with 30% support, virtually unchanged from where the party stood in EKOS's polling the previous week.

The New Democrats were up a remarkable 4.9 points, vaulting them into second place with 29.1% support. The Liberals were down 2.6 points to 27%, though that shift was just inside the margin of error.

The Greens were at 8% and the Bloc Québécois at 4.1%, while support for other parties was at 1.8%.

That last number is noteworthy, since EKOS's previous poll from April 29-May 5 had support for the Others at 4.5%. That was an unreasonably high number, and for EKOS to now have them below 2% is certainly out of character. I'm not sure why that happened this week, but it freed up 2.7 points that seems to have gone to partly to the Greens and mostly to the NDP.

This poll sets off alarm bells because of the dramatic shift it is highlighting - not in the sense that it makes the poll unreliable, but in the sense that we need to sit up and pay attention to what is happening. Is it an outlier or the first poll to catch a new trend?

As it marks the first time the Liberals have placed in third in any poll since March 2013, over two years ago, it definitely stands out. And this is indeed a bad poll for the Liberals, as they lead only in Atlantic Canada. Their scores were low in Quebec and Alberta. They were also low in Ontario, though so were the Conservatives.

The Tories certainly aren't coming anywhere close to a majority government with 33% support in Ontario and 29% in British Columbia. EKOS also seems to be pointing towards a deflating Tory balloon in Quebec. Something to watch as well.

The NDP numbers were only unusually good in Ontario and Quebec. The party has not held such a wide lead in Quebec for some time, and being in a close three-way race in Ontario is something new. The party was already competitive in B.C. and doing well in Alberta, so those are well within the norm. It is the surge in Ontario and Quebec that is behind this second place finish for the NDP, so we need to keep an eye on the NDP's numbers in these two provinces over the next few weeks.

But if these numbers became reality on election day, the House of Commons would look like nothing we've ever seen before. The Conservatives would win about 131 seats, the NDP would take 110, and the Liberals would win 94, with the Greens and Bloc winning the remaining three seats.

It would be close enough that, if these were what the polls were showing the day before the election, the model would project 113 to 153 seats for the Tories, 98 to 131 for the NDP, and 71 to 108 for the Liberals. That means the NDP would, potentially, be able to win a plurality of seats.

Is this where we are heading? This is such a large change in the political landscape that we need to stand back and exercise a little patience. Maybe these numbers are completely real, and we're now in a three-way race. Maybe these numbers are just a bout of post-Alberta zeal that will fade away in a matter of weeks. Maybe no polls aside from EKOS and the (apparently) forthcoming Forum will show these kinds of results, and we'll return to the status quo. For now, we just don't know. Watch this space!

114 comments:

If you compare the EKOS poll's breakdown by education level, there seems to be no significant change from last week among the high school or college educated, but statistically significant gains for the NDP among the university educated. I imagine this has to do with C-51, and would make the big city centre ridings tougher to hold (Toronto, Vancouver) or gain (Calgary, Edmonton) for the Liberals if it held.

" statistically significant gains for the NDP among the university educated. I imagine this has to do with C-51, and would make the big city centre ridings tougher to hold (Toronto, Vancouver) or gain (Calgary, Edmonton) for the Liberals if it held."

Absolutely agreed. High tech workers in particular have zero tolerance for the kind of attack on liberty that Bill C-51 represents. You will see basically no support for the Liberal position there, and plenty for the Green and NDP positions. Subverting Bill C-51 by whatever means, "legal" and otherwise - though what "legal" means in a regime that permits official acts based on torture "evidence" I could not say - is going to be a high priority if Harper or Trudeau gets the reigns of power.

Among other serious problems, Bill C-51 and its US equivalents the Patriot Act and illegal NSA spying, cripple the North American high tech services and software industry. Globally, no one can trust US or Canadian (or Australian or New Zealand or UK) corporations to manage private data. The BRICs countries are building their own Internet, basically, and will soon have their own operating systems and secure protocols as well.

All this will *destroy* the English speaking world's dominance in software, services and the Internet. I repeat, *destroy* it more thoroughly than the auto or electronics industries were wiped out in North America, well beyond any chance of any recovery.

So there is really no way, regardless of one's own personal ideology, for a high-tech worker to support Bill C-51 or Patriot Act or NSA spying. They make it simply impossible to plan a long term career in North America in the software or service industries. We'll all have to move to India, Iceland or Indonesia or something, and sooner than we think.

It'll all go down the drain faster than BlackBerry did when the CEO began to talk hockey instead of OS...

It still way too early to draw any conclusions last summer, people were posting here how Harper was going to resign because the CPC polling numbers had hit all time lows....a year later they are within reach of a majority. A campaign itself could see serious shifts as well....so much yet to happen.

Given where we see the big changes, regionally, demographically, and between parties, the recent event of most moment may well not be the Alberta election result - for all that that doesn't hurt. The Liberals made their first major policy announcement this past week. And, if you're a "progressive" voter, choosing between the Liberals and the NDP, that announcement was very disappointing. On top of Liberal support for formalizing the conversion of CSIS into a secret police force (as noted above), there are substantive reasons why that part of the electorate may start to turn on the Liberals.

I still think a campign could really bring a majority for either the Conservatives or Liberals the best thing the NDP could get in my opinion is a minority since they are not as established as the Liberals and definetly not the Conservatives.

I think something that will be really interesting is the debates, Mulcair, Trudeau and Harper are all very professional debaters and are not motivated speakers. Harper can get his facts across but is not at all persuasive, Trudeau is very persuasive but not in a debating environment and I just feel that Mulcair would be much like Harper in a debating environment.

I don't think a majority for the Liberals was ever in the cards. Perhaps if they'd waited until now to select Justin Trudeau as leader his bump (which has now thoroughly waned) would have elevated them to a majority position, but the party doesn't have a wide-enough base of support to win a majority.

The NDP could, though. That probably wasn't true a month ago, but it appears to be true now.

Agreed on both counts. NDP support is also typically pretty solid support, not based on leader gaffes or bumps but on policy and local candidates' appeal and track record of actual NDP provincial governments... which includes more balanced budgets than other parties, in recent history.

The NDP will need to hammer the Liberals with that C-51 decision, and I have no doubt they will. They can also bang pots about the secrecy surrounding the TPP trade talks which will help to paint the Liberals as merely Conservative-lites. Interesting times.

This does help explain why Harper now wants some one on one debates with Trudeau as that would help keep the vote split between Libs & NDP if the NDP is really climbing fast. Harper's nightmare is to see the NDP beat him ala the Alberta election.

Agreed. The Conservatives are going to be counting to a crazy degree on extreme splits unless they climb. Spending tens of millions on ads before September will help (sadly enough).

The debates will be very, very important. If Trudeau does poorly the NDP will be looking at a majority. Odds are May & Mulcair will both do well as both have a reputation as being good debaters. Harper will be hoping for the pity vote, that the other 3 attacking him will make him look good.

We could see a majority with sub 30% potentially if splits go one parties way. Also I think it could be the first national election where highest % isn't the winner of the most seats.

Liberal policies on c-51, pipelines, direct tax cut for Families with Kids rather than $15 day care, global warming (let the provinces handle), infrastructure (let the provinces handle) are very close to what Harper has laid out.

Why would anyone voting Liberal have a hard time voting for Harper?

If Trudeau continues to implode I can see the CPC gaining more than the NDP.

It's obvious at this point that the majority of voters want to toss the conservatives out of government, Now, up until last month the LPC has looked like the party to do that. However between the Alberta election and Trudeau support of C-51 and the carbon copy policies that the LPC seems to have taken from the CPC has start a shift of support from the LPC to the NDP.

For the Tories to repeat a majority will take more the the implosion of the LPC, as there is little support they can draw from the liberals because the people who were flocking to them we're doing do thinking they are the Anti-Con party. Worse yet for the Tories there's evidence that shows their own support is starting to shift to the NDP. Now things could defiantly change but if you really think that the implosion of the liberal will lead to a CPC victory your 100% wrong no one in 2011 voting for the CPC was doing so to stop the NDP, they were doing ti because the Ignatieff failed to show he could govern. In fact had the campaign continued for another one or two weeks there a good chance we would have had an NDP government as their support was rising everywhere not just in Quebec.

No that I'm expecting the LPC to implode (though stranger things have happened) but if it happened I don't really see more that 10%-20% of their support going Tory. the rest votes NDP if only to get rid of the CPC... the best that would happen for the CPC and LPC is this support stays home and doesn't vote at all.

says "The debates will be very, very important. If Trudeau does poorly the NDP will be looking at a majority. Odds are May & Mulcair will both do well as both have a reputation as being good debaters"

Point #1 no one will take Ms. May seriously after her melt down.

Point #2 The expectations that the punditry and NDP supporters have set for Mr. Mulcair are almost impossible to meet. Unless Mr. Mulcair comes of as a cross between Lincoln and JFK with the personal charm or a Mulroney/Layton has Harper beaten down to a crying wreck in a debate.... Mulcair is the loser.

If the debate format is one one one Harper vs Mulcair I fully expect that the debate will be a draw..... which given the NDP hope makes Harper the winner and Mulcair a huge loser.

Mulcair did not over whelm Mr. Topp (a backroom awkward sort of personality who never ran for or was elected in any public office) in the NDP leadership contest 4 ballots and 57-42. Harper is a far more formidable presence and foe than Mr.Topp

The CPC does not need LPC support to collpase they need roughly a third of those who today, say they'll vote for the LPC.

You really have a strange view of the LPC. The LPC is run by well-off middle age housewives, they are not natural NDP supporters. The LPC is a small "c" conservative party hence; support for the Monarchy and status quo Senate, policies that generally favour Bay St., shifting the tax burden from income tax to consumption taxes (a wise move but also fiscally conservative in nature), support for FPTP, the Clarity Act, Support for Kyoto then doing barely anything tangible to implement it! The list is almost endless... The point is that it is very odd that one would assume supporters of a mall "c" conservative party would go to the NDP 4:1 over the Conservatives. In short it wouldn't happen if anything the Tories would have the advantage!

Pete, And you're confusing the party with its supporters. It's true, the Liberal Party is a small c conservative party, but its supporters have usually viewed it, and themselves, as left of centre or centre-left. And we know that a lot of Liberal support moved to the NDP in 2011 (where else would it have come from in sufficient numbers to make the NDP the Official Opposition?).

Nobody thought that Conservative voters would suddenly turn and vote NDP in Alberta, but they did.Anything is possible now. Harper is one of the most hated people in the country and that is not going to change come election day.

Some of its supporters view themselves the way you describe many others do not. In any case many voting decisions come down to practical and tangible concerns for example, taxes. These Liberal voters are not likely to choose the NDP on its own merits although the possibility for crossover with a good candidate, local issue et cetera no doubt likely does exist. Let's not confuse ourselves however, the NDP is very unlikely to garner 80% of Grit supporters in the event of a Liberal implosion, they would be lucky to gain 50%. One just needs to look in BC to see how a potential breakdown would work: The BC NDP does well to break 40% of the vote and appears to have a natural cap at about 42%. Conservative parties always win in BC unless there is a split on the centre-right. If one looks at the 1972 BC election as an example, you will see nearly 80% of the voters who left Social Credit voted for the Conservative Party instead.

Chirumenga,

Your supposition that many voters moved from the Liberals to NDP in 2011 is not really borne out by the facts. The NDP did well in 2011 primarily because French-Canadian nationalists changed from voting for the BQ to the NDP and le bon Jack. If one subtracts the NDP's Quebec vote from their English Canadian vote in 2011 they had a good showing in English Canada with 20.3% but, that is only a 2% increase on their 2008 showing. In other words a lot of Liberal support did not move to the NDP in 2011and what support did move was roughly equal to the support the Conservatives picked up from disgruntled Liberal voters.

The majority of people polled have stated they are not voting CPC and my guess would be because they want to remove them from power not because of any left/right ideology. Campaigns do matter and it's quite possible that Harper could gain another 10% and a majority, but right now it's not looking like he can.

Again I think my right-wing friends are not looking at the facts of the coming election clearly. This election if going to be about two things; what type of change you want and its a referendum on the last 9 year of CPC rule. Security, healthcare. jobs, tax ect. are just the icing on the cake. I'm sorry but if what I think is correct there is little support the CPC can take from the LPC if they fall flat. I think a 4:1 NDP:CPC split of the liberal support is dead on.

People who use the word hate really need to expand their vocabulary! Canadians are mature enough as people to differentiate between a person's political views and who they are as an individuals. Canadians may dislike certain people or policies but, hate is a strong word that really has no basis in fact. it is simply a socialist tactic to draw distinction between us as people and create a class-warfare mentality. it's shameless, despicable and borders on poor taste and legality!

You do not get to dictate to people what the next election will be about!

This is why the NDP never wins-they keep demanding the People obey NDP mantra instead of allowing people to be themselves! For some people the ballot box question may be: "what type of change (do) you want? and or; a referendum on the last 9 year of CPC rule". In reality however, there will be as many millions of ballot box questions as there are voters!

I have never dictated to anyone what the election will be about, I have only stated my opinion (which I think is right). You're free not to agree and debate me but I think you're giving me far to much credit I'm not changing anyone's mind.

The NDP has and very much can win anywhere and everywhere, no questions or arguments. The only mantra going around is right-wing nonsense demanding the people obey the old parties instead of allowing people to be themselves!

Liberal or Tory same old story!

Yes there are millions of voters with millions of separate issues but there is also a theme to any election, even if that theme is an absences of one. But if you think the major theme of this election isn't going to be change of/satisfaction with the government you're either ignorant of the last 4 years or lying.

I getting a bit sick of Libs and Con accusing me of back @$$ward ideas while trying to paint themselves as non-partisan. I have freely admitted my own bias and my history with the NDP it high passed time the other partisans here do the same. Your moronic postings here only make you look foolish and you are not fooling anyone into believing you're not biased.

I don't think this election will be about change as much as it will centre on the economy/ fiscal issues and terrorism/ international affairs and in that sense it will be about satisfaction with the Government. Most people have done quite well during the last nine years; the economy has grown nearly 30% in that time. The NDP does have backward ideas that why aside from the few examples you cite the vast majority of the CCF?NDP existence has been spent on the opposition benches! The NDP has won 2 elections in BC in the last 40 years that is 1/11! Time to roll up the tent!

Really time to roll up the tent just because they've only won 2 elections? are you for real?

The BCNDP are the only real left/center-left alternative in the province, I'm sure the right wing would love the left to pack up and call it a day, but it's not going to happen, ever.

Also, where are you getting the stats that most people are doing quite well after 9 years of CPC rule. Every poll that asks that show that most people polled think the opposite it true and most also think the nation is going in the wrong direction. Your entitled to you opinion but the facts don't back it up at all. My examples are hardly few and most of the time the NDP's policies are exactly inline with public opinion and needs. That they have spent so much time on the opposition bench is due to FPTP and that fact they the Lib and Tories (in one form or another) have been around since confederation.

Carbonear Pete, not only - as DCMOJY says - do polls indicate that most people have not "done quite well during the last nine years" but actual economic figures demonstrate that for the vast majority, income has stagnated or dropped (not only in the last nine years, but going back to the beginning of the 1980s, when neo-liberal economic policies began to be seriously implemented). Also , the economy has not all grown by 30%. Where does that outlandish figure come from? Are you sure it's not simply an indication of profit growth for hedge funds, or something similar? The economy is much more that a few Bay Street Derivative Cowboys, you know.

DCMOJY, not only has FPTP hurt the NDP, but decades of propaganda, well-financed corporate power, and well-situated establishment institutions have alternately demonised and dismissed not simply the NDP, but the policies and values the party is meant to represent.

I've been voting Purple most of my life, neither firmly Red nor Blue. This sentence "(due to Patrick Brown winning the PC leadership, Forum implausibly explains)" caught my attention. I "get" Alberta, when the two choices are unpalatable, sometimes you break the mold and go elsewhere. The Ontario PCs have just made themselves unelectable with a nutbar off the chart right wing loony, and although the Wynne govt is slightly better than the McGinty, still awful and making the NDP look reasonable and attractive. Federally, the Liberals have just made a major and for many voters--I'm one of them--completely unforgivable error by supporting C-51. Overnight, its not the NDP and Liberals splitting the left vote, its the Liberals and Conservatives splitting the unacceptably hard right wing neo-Fascist vote, with the NDP suddenly looking like the only reasonable and centrist party.

I think once the Conservatives start campigning and the NDP surge dies down (which it will, judging from past experiences) the Conservatives might win another majority.

The Ontario PC race has totally ruined my support in the Party Chritine Elliot was favoured by the majority of caucus and Ontarians, electing some Social Conservative will not help them, judging that Ontario is very Liberal on social issues.

I'm not sure that the NDP surge will "die down based on past experinece" - it didn't die down in 2011 when the orange wave swept across Quebec and other parts of Canada and it didn't die down in Alberta either

I think many don't know that the NDP had 10%+ in all but 2 ridings last time. They have a base in virtually every riding. More than any other party after 2011. That means a lot fewer 'no hope' ridings which could cause them to be spread thin. Depending on how good (or bad) a job they do focusing their money we could see some issues.

It hasn't died down in Alberta yet, but let's remember it's only been a few days. The orange crush hit risings across the country, but the surge in NDP support did infact die down, until they projected only 60 seats for the NDP earlier this year. So I think it will die back down, once again.

The in this latest poll a month and a NDP provincial win later EKOS has CPC 49 , Liberal 15 and NDP 25.

Changes in the last month in Alberta CPC +8, Liberal -11 and NDP +1.

Trudeau and the Liberals have been in polling free fall the like that we haven't ever seen outside of an election campaign. If the Trend continues they will ENTERING the campaign at the same level of support they had in 2011.... around 20%.... They are closer to 20% than their polling high of 6 months ago 38%.

The NDP win in Alberta and becoming the primary opposition party will shake loose the Blue Liberals and Red Tories that were thinking and saying they were voting Liberal.

These 10% block of the vote will almost all vote CPC (again) when faced with the CPC / NDP vote.

The folks in Alberta, according to the last month of EKOS polling have are leading this shift.

Will Trudeau declare his support for Mulcair as PM if the Liberals are the 3rd place party??

Unimaginable. But if he did there would be a stampede of strategic voters....... To Harper.

BCVoR, "Where does this story about the NDP surge in Alberta come from?"

Well you could start with this quote from Frank Graves (Ekos) : "There are clear echoes of the shocking Alberta result, but it would be a mistake to see the NDP ascension as merely a bounce from Alberta. Indeed, there has been a clear pattern of an NDP rise over the last four months (from 18 points in early February to 29 points today). There are some important sources of this rise."

When you're looking to confirm or denies reports of a surge you should probably look at more than the two most recent polls.

I think that is the biggest element. This is similar to 1993 in that respect. In the early 90's we saw a massive desire for change - first the NDP in Ontario in 1990, then Reform & BQ doing amazingly well in 1993 and the PC's dropping to 2 seats. Right now we're seeing similar with the NDP majority in Alberta and a federal election shortly. I suspect the Conservatives are getting nervous about it thus Harper playing hide and seek with the debates while the media is trying to remove the Greens from the picture with the massive over reaction to May having a bad speech (compare to Conservatives using public funds to develop partisan ads, NDP taking millions to set up partisan offices, any number of dumb statements by Trudeau).

Well I'm not sure I agree with you assessment about what Mrs. May, if it had been any of the other three leader it would be a all over the airwaves too.

As for the debates, yes it's smacks of politicking on strategy of the worst kind. I think the Cons are very worried over what has happened in Alberta and I think their internal polling is showing them something even worse on the horizon.

Chimurenga indeed it does appear there is a shift away from the extreme Harper right. Will the NDP with their shift towards the centre do the best ?? Not majority for sure but quite possibly balance of power !

Yup, remains to be seen. But I still don't see any evidence of this "shift towards the centre" that people have mentioned - It's been a long time since Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles, and every subsequent incarnation of the party has looked more centrist (or worse) than the versions under Layton and Mulcair.

Mulcair got a boost because of Notley, just like Trudeau did because of Wynne in may 2014. Ekos is showing greens at 15% in mb! Not believable. Libs have been going down since Nov 2014 ,no correlation with c51. The fact that there are so many lib govts at the provincial level really hurts Justin Trudeau.

In other words, it's more accurate. The ballot will have a "Green" option on it too. And the election will be a much larger sample size than any poll. The fact that prompting and larger samples produces more Green response must indicate that the other polls are wrong.

Green vote suppression is due to practical tactical choices in elections, not lack of support. Services like votepair.ca got far more participation from the Green voters than any other, with thousands trying to swap with Saanich-Gulf voters to elect May in 2011. Almost all were left stranded due to not having a good ground game to sign them up in that riding. This election she and other viable Greens will rectify that error so the Green total vote will be closer to its polling numbers. In ridings like Yukon it will only take about as many swaps to shift it as there were stranded Green swappers last election... so even ridings where Greens ran strong third or fourth are viable given the focus and early start signing up swappers.

Also this will be a factor against Peter MacKay - a lot of veterans will be shifting support to whoever can beat him there, and Greens know there is a chance of getting May back home some day too if they remove MacKay - so there are no safe seats in Atlantic Canada for anyone in Harper's camp. Not a one.

I lot of people are trumpeting the Alberta NDP win as surge of federal support.. I question that.. yes it has caused people to take the NDP seriously, but it doesnt translate federally..What happened in Alberta was a perfect storm against the PC's. IE: the PC's lost it more then the NDP won it..Everyone was mad at the PC's, both the liberals and the greens and the Alberta party were barely seen or had representation.. (making the only real choices either NDP or Wildrose), Notley did great in the debates, even to the last day the majority of people did not actually believe the polls (so no one switched their votes like in 2012), and the "right" vote was split (because of the 'first past the post' system the pcs lost a lot of seats but still garnered a 1/3 of the votes ..None of this is really transferable Federally..

You've reversed the terms of the NDP phenomenon. It's not that the NDP victory in Alberta was the product of a surge federally, but that the NDP victory in Alberta will encourage support for the federal party. It's true, the federal NDP (like the Alberta NDP) has been quietly increasing in the polls this year, but the Alberta win has a much more powerful impact than this slow rise. It says to people that, if Albertans - well-known for their devotion to the Conservative brand - are willing to toss the PCs (with their Harper-approved Premier, no less), and to toss them not merely for the Wildrose or Liberals, etc. but for the NDP, then the NDP are electable anywhere in this country, including federally. The same effect was noticeable in the 2011 election, actually. When it became clear that the NDP was gaining strongly in , the party's numbers starting rising elsewhere in the country, too (particularly in BC). I'm convinced that if the election had gone on 2 weeks longer, Harper would not have won a majority and might even have lost to the NDP.

One note on the Alberta election. Your assertion that "the liberals and the greens and the Alberta party were barely seen or had representation.. (making the only real choices either NDP or Wildrose)" is quite wrong. At the start of the election, the Liberal party had 5 seats while theNDP had only 4. Most pundits presumed that Wildrose would win (if the PCs didn't) and that the Liberals - even without a leader - would do better than the NDP. The right was no more split than they were in 2012. And on the federal scene, the left vote splitting notion may become less relevant - the Liberals are faltering, again, and so are the Conservatives... It's entirely possible that both those parties will drop sufficiently to allow the NDP into power.

Quote "One note on the Alberta election. Your assertion that "the liberals and the greens and the Alberta party were barely seen or had representation.. (making the only real choices either NDP or Wildrose)" is quite wrong. At the start of the election, the Liberal party had 5 seats while theNDP had only 4"...At the time of the debates the NDP and the Wildrose and the PC's were the the ONLY parties with a full slate of candidates.. If you were strategically voting to get rid of the PC's the NDP and Wildrose were your only real choices..My assertion that it was the "right" vote splitting is what primarily helped the NDP get into power is VERY correct.. ...Federally ANYTHING is possible in a 3 way race.. but unless one of the three seriously implodes the most likely outcome is a Harper win..

The federal liberals are getting dinged in the polls.. but they still have a hard core base (like the conservatives)..I predict it will be a 3 way race but with the "left" splitting their votes it will enable another win for the conservatives..UNLESS one of the three parties seriously implodes by doing something completely stupid.. or insane.. I truly think this will be a candidate VS Candidate election, and less about the parties themselves..

So Eric & Co. If you were to plug in this poll's result into your model, what would come out? It would truly be ground breaking, that's for sure:http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_1053.html

Question #1Which leader and party do you currently support?Tom Mulcair and New Democratic Party of Canada 33 %Justin Trudeau and Liberal Party of Canada 32.5 %Stephen Harper and Conservative Party of Canada 26.5 %Elizabeth May and Green Party of Canada 4.5 %Mario Beaulieu and Bloc Quebecois Party 3.5 %Other Leader and Party 1% %Undecided 6 %

.. I know it's likely incorrect and exaggerated from where things currently stand (Conservatives down to 36 in Alberta seems impossible even with an NDP provincial majority), bu let's play with the hypothetical here.

That poll seems really over exaggerated. The Conservatives would need a really big scandal to go down that low in BC, Alberta & Ontario. Let's not forget that Provincial Wildrose voters are Federal a Conservatives which means the NDP are not going to make the gains some people hope they will.

How are they close to the BCNDP? are they internal pollsters for the party or are they a partisan group?

My only issue is I've never heard about them before and their number seem a bit well wrong (unless they are catching something early). What exactly make them unsuitable to add to the model because if it'd party ties, then a lot of the pollsters need to be removed for similar reasons.

IMHO the biggest effect of the NDP win in Alberta is likely to be on the ground game. Every Alberta NDP candidate, member, supporter, donor and volunteer will be energized by this win. The result at the federal level will be more money for local candidates' campaigns, more volunteers on the ground, and a strong GOTV effort on E-Day. This could mean some company for Linda Duncan, and some strong second-place finishes in those seats the Harperistas hold. The Liberals will be irrelevant in Alberta, as will the Greens.

Please enlighten us how a lot of centrists and conservatives were freaked out? The only reason people were surprised by the ANDP win was because it was the fall of political dynasty.

People in Alberta and rest of Canada could see the writing on the wall and it didn't cause some kind of right-wing surge to the PCAA or WR. This constant assumption that people are scared of the NDP is a joke.

also don't forget the "right" between the wild rose and the PC's did have the most votes. . they just didn't get the most seats. . that's a lot of "conservatives" that DID NOT want an NDP govt. . you think those people are going to be passive during the federal?

True they wont be passive but where they end up in the voting booth is another story.

Yes more people voted for either the PCAA or the WR but as the same is true for them, more people voted against them then for. There is ample evidence to suggest they those votes are not transferable between the PCAA and the WR.

SO the question is where do they go? I think it's logical to conclude that most of the WR vote goes to the CPC but I'm not sure the same is true of the PCAA vote.

Quote "Yes more people voted for either the PCAA or the WR but as the same is true for them, more people voted against them then for."...I'm not getting what you are saying?? The popular vote shows that the "right" pc+wr had 52% of the popular vote VS the "left" with 45%..

Is this 52% transferable to the PCPC?almost 100% ! I would be shocked if you had any evidence that shows otherwise.. just saying

Sorry if I wasn't clear,. you are correct in saying that more people voted for the PCAA and the WR then the ANDP. Welcome the the problems we have with FPTP.

However more people voted for the PCAA and the ANDP then the WR and more people voted for the WR and the ANDP then the PCAA. My point is you are assuming the WR and PCAA voters will automatically vote CPC, you are also assuming that the that those who voted ANDP were not right-wing voters.

I think there is more evidence that shows the NDP can gain those PCAA and WR voters just as much as the CPC.

Unless you have show that the 52% will 100% vote for the CPC, the evidence of the Alberta election would say that at least a good portion of the PCAA vote (and even some of the WR) is accessible to the Federal NDP. After all the ANDP took over 40% of the PCAA's 2012 vote and almost 20% of the WR's 2012 vote. there is no evidence to say that the voters who stayed with the PCAA and WR are 100% conservative anti-NDP voters.

While I agree that the NDP organization will be much invigorated by the Alberta NDP win, it has negative effects too. Notably, it will be very difficult for Mulcair to drop support for Energy East, despite it being very unpopular in NB and other Atlantic provinces, giving rise to such phenomena as the Greens taking the only third party seat in the last NB provincial election.

"The Liberals will be irrelevant in Alberta, as will the Greens." This kind of talk is extremely dangerous to the NDP, who simply cannot win without Liberal and Green crossover votes, vote swaps or common policies. To call any faction with more than 5% of the poll "irrelevant" courts disaster.

Harper must be really getting worried with recent polls. He no longer wants to do national debates on TV. He is running scared and the panic is starting to show. Indirectly, this confirms the polls. The Conservatives are slipping and Harper knows it.

David Cameron refused to debate also but on opposite grounds, because minor parties were *NOT* included. Canadians may react to this attempt to control debate much more negatively.

In any case the media consortium has 337 other Conservative candidates to invite to speak for the Conservative Party, and just inviting them all to try out for the debating slot will be an amusing exercise in why not to defy the media consortium.

Aside from Ontario looking like the king maker, there is nothing in your statement that can be proven.

Nothing more then Liberal and Tory fear mongering. If an NDP government can come to power in BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and now Alberta there's no reason to think suburban Ontario wouldn't elect them either. They already elected the NDP to power once and they have elected 905er NDP MP.

I think you're right at least in a broad sense, even when the NDP polls well they fall well below the Liberal seat average, it's what good politicians have known for ages: most voters fall closely on one side or the other of the all important median voter.

I think Ontario will determine the ultimate winner but BC will decide majority/minority status.

If the Greens do well in the debates and get a few more points up (crack 10%) we could start seeing a lot of shifts in BC thanks to a strong ground game (Greens are focused on winnable seats - learned a major lesson in 2008 did a national campaign and had a million votes but no seats, in 2011 1/2 the votes but a seat and far more influence).

We'll see if a bandwagon effect hits and the NDP keeps growing and the Liberals start dropping like a stone as they deserve (3 duds as leader in a row - the Ontario PC's are doing the same).

So true Thierry. The Greens fought that for a long time and kept being ignored or mocked for it. The old 'losers complain' argument. I love seeing the Conservatives complaining about Alberta now and how vote splitting allowed the NDP a majority. I remember pre-2004 the PC and Reform parties complaining about how unfair the system was until they got into power.

It's always like that. The PQ had electoral reform on their platform since their creation (until the last election) and never did it. The QLP was screaming bloody murder in 1998 and wanted electoral reform and did absolutely nothing when they gained power again. I can't believe why some people would actually support our system, it is zero representative of the population.

I agree that FPTP is inherently problematic, but it would be much less so if political parties were strictly limited in campaign fundraising/financing (with all funding provided by a federally/provincially administered body), if all parties were funded (say, with the per-vote fund that Harper trashed), and the whole election scene turned into a level playing field.

Well yes and no, I read several articles that posit that FPTP eventually forces a two party system and polarizes the electorate.

While a per-vote scheme would be a great step forward, but it wouldn't fix the issue of voter polarization or the hardship it places on new movements to gain electoral support. just look at the CCF/NDP. It's taken us over 60 years to to get into a position to maybe form a federal government.

A real form of PR (MMP getting my support) id the only significant way to fix our democracy, sadly still a long way off I fear.

People need to realize the atmosphere and fear of the federal NDP in Ontario of 2011 is gone. Any remaining worry was put to rest by Alberta voting for an NDP premier in Rachel Notley. In 2011, the economy was down and people in Ontario were tired of a minority government, so many moderates and right of centres voted Conservative to just get things more stable. That's nowhere near the case today. People fail to realize with C-51, the RCMP provisions, and the Conservatives spending millions on those useless commercials, let alone all the other little scandals, Harper is more disliked than Hudak. Ya, it's that bad. The Conservatives could be in huge trouble in Ontario.

Remember the last poles before the Ontrario provincial election. The "shy" voters are mostly Liberals and moderates in Ontario, who right now do not look like they'll vote for Harper in any way. Things could change, but the protest vote in Ontario could bring the Cons down to under 15 seats in Ontario. Yes, conservatives, it's that bad.

@ John_Northey - I'm not complaining about vote splitting awarding the NDP the win. I acknowledge it, but I think it's a good thing. The non-NDP vote couldn't agree on what it wanted. Having a government based on that would be awful.

I'm no NDP supporter - I voted WR in this election - but I'm a big fan of FPTP because I think it provides better results. The NDP win in Alberta is one such result.

Don't count, my point was that more fundamental chagnes need to be made to make the system more democratic. PR or Instant-Runoff would be better than FPTP, but none of them in themselves is a real fix. Australia has PR and IR yet suffers from some of the worst outcomes in terms of political representation (aggravated by probably the most severe media concentration in the First World). Israel and Germany both have PR systems I wouldn't care to emulate. The real key is to get business out of the system as much as possible so that there truly is a free and fair election.

@Ira - I'm interested in hearing more about what you consider to be the "better results" that come from FPTP. What kind of "results" do you have in mind?

In general, the argument that we are each an individual cuts *against* FPTP. Under a serious system of PR, each individual vote cast for a party contributes directly to that party's standing. Under FPTP, most individual votes count for nothing.

A serious system of PR also makes it meaningful for people to vote for the policy options they support, whatever those might be. In FPTP, all voting is a strategic game, where my vote is conditional on the expected votes of all other voters, with no expectation that my - individual - views will ever be represented in parliament.

FPTP is a poor reflection of aggregate preferences, but an even worse reflection of individual preferences.

But you seem to have in mind a different kind of "better result" - "a better job of giving us good government" - which you seem inclined to treat as something distinct from individual or aggregate preferences. I would suggest that what constitutes "giving us good government" is precisely what is at issue in those individual and aggregate preferences, and precisely why one should be concerned about how the system may distort the expression of those preferences.

FPTP is, ultimately, premised on the idea that preferences are over individual representatives - specific people - who are all independent of one another. PR is premised on the idea that preferences are over parties - groups of people. The reality is that neither of those are actually true. Preferences are over policies and (even more so) policy outcomes. Parties have generally presented themselves as policy bundles, such that party preferences can at least serve as proxies for policy preferences. Individuals present themselves almost entirely as functions of their parties - and act as such. That being the case, PR at least comes *closer* to permitting the expression of actual preferences than does FPTP.

I would call getting 29% of the vote and winning a majority while a party with 35% of the vote does not form government a very bad result!Reference: Alberta 1921

Also people point to the Nazis as a failure to PR but he would have won on FPTP too given a decent lead in the popular vote. But do you know who wouldn't have won on PR? The National Party of SA which introduced apartheid after winning a majority with a smaller popular vote than its opposition!

I agree that suburban Ontario votes entirely on fear. It's just a question of what scares them the most. In 1995-97 it was terror of Quebec separation leaving Ontario at risk of becoming North Ohio or East Michigan, unable to sustain a federation without Quebec. Thus they voted Liberal heavily. Nothing to do with the NDP.

Ontario is not going to be afraid of Alberta or Western "alienation", certainly not with an NDP government in Alberta and likely one next (or an NDP-Green coalition or accord) in BC. So there's no argument there, and there is no practical threat of any Alberta separatism (it's a landlocked hellhole with a boom-bust economy, a diplomatic status like North Korea and exactly zero prospect of making it as a country).

What should scare Ontario in 2015 is the prospect of utterly alienating Quebec and even Atlantic Canada out of Confederation by continued policy of science denial. This is destroying fisheries, tourism and of course threatens every coastline and island. Last year there was a hurricane in the first week of July that put out power in Nova Scotia, in places for a full week or more. A high-tech and tourism and media production and fibre optic brokerage and sea transport economy just cannot tolerate this. We desperately need modernization of our power grid and communications, just to keep up with direct competitors like Maine and Tennessee ... but Harper shows up in Cumberland-Colchester to promise "infrastructure" meaning parks and trails?!?! This is insane drivel that fools no one.

Newfoundland and Labrador and PEI will have 0 Conservative seats after this next election. Nova Scotia will have either 1 (MacKay) or two (if Bill Casey is rejected in favour of the Harper puppet). New Brunswick may have 3 or 4, at most, but it will certainly not have more. As in Quebec and BC, the old "Red Tory" PCs are flocking into the Liberals to form a centre-right Liberal party both provincially and federally. It's only a matter of time before this trend hits Ontario.

Another Harper majority ends Canada. It won't be difficult to separate Quebec if there's a war in Iran for Israel, or an entanglement in Eastern Europe to pander to Ukranian ethnic voters, or more climate denialism, or another failure to build infrastructure to at least US standards (rail, power grids, fibre optics, electric vehicle support) we compete with.

And if you think Newfoundland is not aware that Iceland is a viable country of 300,000 people, you are very very wrong. Confederation is fragile. It will fail if Harper "wins" again with his many frauds.

Ira the question of benefiting it's residents vs autonomy is wrapped in enigma. In actual fact this is a pretty good country to live in despite the CPC efforts !! So let's get rid of them and things can go back to what was before which was distinctly better !!

I don't agree it was better before. The tax system was less fair before (I love income splitting). The interprovincial trade barriers were stronger. There was a long gun registry.

There have been bad changes, too. The auto bailouts were appalling. The 2009 stimulus package had no measurable positive effect on economic growth, and we never went back to pre-recession spending levels. But then, I expect the other parties would have done the same thing with the stimulus. They were the ones calling for it in 2008; that's what caused the prorogation scandal.

As a person with degrees in statistics and economics I loath him as he goes against everything I know. Destroys the census (voluntary census is about as useful as asking criminals to voluntarily go to jail), manipulates the economy with idiotic loopholes in the tax system and massive bailouts and handouts to favoured companies. Tosses away Canadian rights in trade deals that give companies outside Canada more rights than ones in Canada. Skyrocketed spending pre-recession, along with slashing efficient taxes (GST) while jumping ones that hurt job creation (payroll taxes like EI being kept artificially high so he can claim a balanced budget). His traitorous action of selling the wheat board to Saudi Arabia instead of to Canadian Farmers who actually offered $100 million more for it. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

Whatever the interpretation of the polling results and the speculation of what voters are and will be doing (it is so subjective by the comments here and I have my own views!); the trend is clear, it doesn't really matter who comes in in what order; at this point in time, the NDP Liberals together are in line for a majority, the Conservatives not. Where the trend goes in the next several months ... we'll find out some enough!!!.

The NDP and Liberals are not inline with each other policy wise. The Liberals are much more in the Centre-Right when it comes to Fiscal issues and would never approve of radical things like a $18 minimum wage. There will never be a coalition government in the current stages. Like people have stated with this NDP surge Liberal voters will get scared by a NDP Minority and vote Conservative, especially if they hear about a coalition, I mean look at how that destroyed the Lib Dems in the UK.

What's more likely is a an accord like Ontario 1985. Not a formal coalition, but the second-place Lib/NDP gets to have their government and prime minister supported by the 3rd place party.Basically the same, but w/out the scary c-word.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.